skip to main content
OSTI.GOV title logo U.S. Department of Energy
Office of Scientific and Technical Information

Title: Comparison of Climate Forecasts: Expert Opinions vs. Prediction Markets.


Abstract not provided.

Publication Date:
Research Org.:
Sandia National Lab. (SNL-NM), Albuquerque, NM (United States)
Sponsoring Org.:
USDOE National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)
OSTI Identifier:
Report Number(s):
DOE Contract Number:
Resource Type:
Resource Relation:
Conference: Proposed for presentation at the Third Santa Fe Conference on Global and Regional Climate Change held October 31 - November 4, 2011 in Santa Fe, NM.
Country of Publication:
United States

Citation Formats

Boslough, Mark Bruce Elrick. Comparison of Climate Forecasts: Expert Opinions vs. Prediction Markets.. United States: N. p., 2011. Web.
Boslough, Mark Bruce Elrick. Comparison of Climate Forecasts: Expert Opinions vs. Prediction Markets.. United States.
Boslough, Mark Bruce Elrick. 2011. "Comparison of Climate Forecasts: Expert Opinions vs. Prediction Markets.". United States. doi:.
title = {Comparison of Climate Forecasts: Expert Opinions vs. Prediction Markets.},
author = {Boslough, Mark Bruce Elrick},
abstractNote = {Abstract not provided.},
doi = {},
journal = {},
number = ,
volume = ,
place = {United States},
year = 2011,
month =

Other availability
Please see Document Availability for additional information on obtaining the full-text document. Library patrons may search WorldCat to identify libraries that hold this conference proceeding.

Save / Share:
  • Numerical weather prediction models (ECMWF, NCEP) are evaluated using ARM observational data collected at the Southern Great Plains (SGP) site. Cloud forecasts generated by the models are compared with cloud microphysical quantities, retrieved using a variety of parameterizations. Information gained from this comparison will be utilized during the FASTER project, as models are evaluated for their ability to reproduce fast physical processes detected in the observations. Here the model performance is quantified against the observations through a statistical analysis. Observations from remote sensing instruments (radar, lidar, radiometer and radiosonde) are used to derive the cloud microphysical quantities: ice water content,more » liquid water content, ice effective radius and liquid effective radius. Unfortunately, discrepancies in the derived quantities arise when different retrieval schemes are applied to the observations. The uncertainty inherent in retrieving the microphysical quantities using various retrievals is estimated from the range of output microphysical values. ARM microphysical retrieval schemes (Microbase, Mace) are examined along with the CloudNet retrieval processing of data from the ARM sites for this purpose. Through the interfacing of CloudNet and “ARM” processing schemes an ARMNET product is produced and employed as accepted observations in the assessment of cloud model predictions.« less
  • Expert opinion is data given by a qualified person in response to a technical question. In these analyses, expert opinion provides information where other data are either sparse or non-existent. Improvements in forecasting result from the advantageous addition of expert opinion to observed data in many areas, such as meteorology and econometrics. More generally, analyses of large, complex systems often involve experts on various components of the system supplying input to a decision process; applications include such wide-ranging areas as nuclear reactor safety, management science, and seismology. For large or complex applications, no single expert may be knowledgeable enough aboutmore » the entire application. In other problems, decision makers may find it comforting that a consensus or aggregation of opinions is usually better than a single opinion. Many risk and reliability studies require a single estimate for modeling, analysis, reporting, and decision making purposes. For problems with large uncertainties, the strategy of combining as diverse a set of experts as possible hedges against underestimation of that uncertainty. Decision makers are frequently faced with the task of selecting the experts and combining their opinions. However, the aggregation is often the responsibility of an analyst. Whether the decision maker or the analyst does the aggregation, the input for it, such as providing weights for experts or estimating other parameters, is imperfect owing to a lack of omniscience. Aggregation methods for expert opinions have existed for over thirty years; yet many of the difficulties with their use remain unresolved. The bulk of these problem areas are summarized in the sections that follow: sensitivities of results to assumptions, weights for experts, correlation of experts, and handling uncertainties. The purpose of this paper is to discuss the sources of these problems and describe their effects on aggregation.« less
  • Social media is a powerful data source for researchers interested in understanding population-level behavior, having been successfully leveraged in a number of different application areas including flu and illness prediction models, detecting civil unrest, and measuring public sentiment towards a given topic of interest within the public discourse. In this work, we present a study of a large collection of Twitter data centered on the social conversation around global cli- mate change during the UN Climate Change Conference, held in Paris, France during December 2015 (COP21). We first developed a mechanism for distinguishing between personal and non-personal accounts. We thenmore » analyzed demographics and emotion and opinion dynamics over time and location in order to understand how the different user types converse around meaningful topics on social media. This methodology offers an in-depth insight into the behavior and opinions around a topic where multiple distinct narratives are present, and lays the groundwork for future work in studying narratives in social media.« less
  • Abstract not provided.
  • The Climate and National Security: Securing Better Forecasts symposium was attended by senior policy makers and distinguished scientists. The juxtaposition of these communities was creative and fruitful. They acknowledged they were speaking past each other. Scientists were urged to tell policy makers about even improbable outcomes while articulating clearly the uncertainties around the outcomes. As one policy maker put it, we are accustomed to making these types of decisions. These points were captured clearly in an article that appeared on the New York Times website and can be found with other conference materials most easily on our website, Themore » symposium, generously supported by the NOAA/JIMO, benefitted the public by promoting scientifically informed decision making and by the transmission of objective information regarding climate change and national security.« less